Ending Evolutionary Card Check in Missouri

Missouri girds her loins for a battle for academic freedom over Evolution

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” - Albert Einstein

.

The Missouri House of Representatives is considering a bill, H.R. 656, which would allow teachers to buck the orthodoxy imposed by Darwinists:

“Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 170, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 170.335, to read as follows:

170.335. 1. The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, superintendents of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemicalevolution. Such educational authorities in this state shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution.

2. Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, superintendent of schools, or school system administrator, nor any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of biological or chemical evolution whenever these subjects are taught within the course curriculum schedule.

3. This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and this section shall not be construed to promote philosophical naturalism or biblical theology, promote natural cause or intelligent cause, promote undirected change or purposeful design, promote atheistic or theistic belief, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or ideas, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. Scientific information includes physical evidence and logical inferences based upon evidence.

4. No later than the start of the 2009-2010 school year, the department of elementary and secondary education shall notify all public school superintendents of the provisions of this section. Each superintendent shall then disseminate to all employees within his or her school system a copy of this section.”

Now, this sounds innocuous enough, but will doubtlessly raise a ruckus as the materialists struggle to retain their power over the minds of America`s youth. The reason that Darwinian theory stands alone in biological sciences is that the theory (I would call it a vague hypothesis) tolerates no competitors, and the young are indoctrinated into it early on. By the time a young man or woman becomes a researcher or teacher, they have been thoroughly steeped in the notion that Darwinian Natural Selection is inviolate, and they know that they will meet a terrible fate should they disagree with any of the tenants. There is a gag order imposed among academics which silences any criticism of this theory. H.R. 656 is an attempt to change that.

But such change cannot be allowed, because an open debate means exposing the nude emperor. Natural Selection is the cornerstone of modern atheistic materialism, and their entire worldview comes crashing down if Darwin should fail. I expect that there will be great anger and furious wrath over this should it pass into law.

The rage of people like Richard Dawkins or P.Z. Myers is best explained by another quote by German scientist and satirist Georg C. Lichtenberg (1742-1799)

“The most heated defenders of a science, who cannot endure the slightest sneer at it, are commonly those who have not made very much progress in it and are secretly aware of this defect.”

And indeed there are many in the paleontological and biological communities who feel this very insecurity about what they have been trained to believe. The fundamental assumption of modern science is materialism, and Darwin`s theory is taught as a fact.

Darwinian theory is little more than vague guesses dressed up as Science

I often hear Natural Selection compared to the theory of gravity. Hmm. Let me ponder for a moment; Newton gave us g=GM1M2/Rsquared while Darwin gave us, uh, “species survive because they are fit, they are fit because they survive.”

See the difference?

With Newton`s theory we can make positive predictions, predictions which have allowed us to send probes to all of the planets in the solar system. We can`t predict anything with Darwin, and for good reason; he didn`t give us the tools to do so. Darwinian theory is little more than vague guesses dressed up as Science.

Think about it; what practical applications have we gotten from Darwin? Genetics are often pointed to as benefitting from Natural Selection, yet when pressed the Darwinist will concede he cannot think of a concrete example to illustrate that point.

Granted, the biological world is hideously complex.

As Albert Einstein pointed out:

“When the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large scientific method in most cases fail.”

And right he is! That is the very same reason that Global Warming models cannot even predict the current climate; the system is too complex for the scientific method to succeed. Fortunately, GW modeling has only been around for a few decades, and the voices in opposition cannot be silenced as easily. Darwinists took control of the debate early on, destroyed their detractors, and established a totalitarian regime.

This regime controls the money, which gives it power to silence critics. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out;

“Science in the modern world has many uses; its chief use, however, is to provide long words to cover the errors of the rich.”

The rich in this case are the scientists themselves who profit from grant research money and who decide where such money will flow. This flow of cash is critical for the survival of the researcher, so the researcher will never break the code of biological Omerta.

Frankly, if the science were incontrovertible, why did we have to have the Piltdown Man hoax? Why the faked pepper moth display? To take it one step further, why do scientism proponents still promulgate the falsehood that people believed the world was flat until Columbus, or that Christianity stood in the way of science? Nicholas Copernicus was a priest, after all, and Galileo was a devout man although he had his problems with the Church hierarchy.

Isaac Newton was a strong Christian. In fact, most of the advances made in science have come from churchmen and faithful laymen. Christianity encouraged science as a means to know God better, and the scientific method is traditionally attributed to Francis Bacon, definitely a believer. Kepler, Descartes, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Kelvin, Max Plancke, even Albert Einstein seemed to hold some agnostic faith. Science was built by religious men, yet the legend of a war between science and faith is dutifully repeated by defenders of Darwin. If the facts are on their side, why do they need to make things up? Why was Inherit the Wind not more accurate to what actually happened in the Scopes trial?

The light of truth disinfects, and there is every effort to keep that light out of our classrooms. There is no reason why the problems with Darwin should not be explained as part of science. If nothing else, the history of science should be taught to students-and that history includes disputing evolutionary theory.

I learned about string theory in high school physics-despite the fact that string theory is not falsifiable. Darwinism itself is not falsifiable, yet it is taught as established fact but any alternatives are prohibited.

Essentially, we have academic Card Check in America, where those with free intellects are intimidated into silence. Missouri is trying to do something about it.

Unfortunately, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon is not likely to sign such a bill into law, and Missouri will continue teaching science in the manner of a Sunday School.

If Darwinists are so convinced of their own rightness, then let`s open the discussion.

John Barnhart

Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us

Timothy Birdnow is a conservative writer and blogger and lives in St. Louis Missouri. His work has appeared in many popular conservative publications including but not limited to The American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Intellectual Conservative and Orthodoxy Today. Tim is a featured contributor to American Daily Reviewand has appeared as a Guest Host on the Heading Right Radio Network. Tim’s website is tbirdnow.mee.nu.

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence and death, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban. -- Follow these instructions on registering:

LATEST COMMENTS

Canada Free Press

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2019 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2019 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement